This LINGUIST List issue is a review of a book published by one of our supporting publishers, commissioned by our book review editorial staff. We welcome discussion of this book review on the list, and particularly invite the author(s) or editor(s) of this book to join in. If you are interested in reviewing a book for LINGUIST, look for the most recent posting with the subject "Reviews: AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW", and follow the instructions at the top of the message. You can also contact the book review staff directly.

This volume is a collection of papers presented at the workshop ''Nominalizations across Languages'', in Stuttgart, Germany in December 2007, as follow:

1. Monika Rathert and Artemis Alexiadou: Introduction.

The two editors of the volume give a short overview of the major research questions concerning the semantics of nominalizations as well as a short summary of the individual papers.

2. Chris Barker: Nominals don't provide criteria of identity.

In his contribution to the volume, Chris Barker claims that ''Nominals don't provide criteria of identity''. The opposite position has been held by researchers like Geach (1962) and Baker (2003), who claim that criteria of identity are part of the lexical meaning of nouns.

Barker first dismisses cases which involve pairs of count nouns and mass nouns such as ''river'' and ''water''; he argues the apparent differences in identity assignment can in fact be accounted for by a proper definition of the mapping relation between the count noun and the corresponding mass noun.

More challenging examples, Barker argues, involve cases where identification is based on a per-event interpretation rather than a per-individual interpretation as in the following pair:

(1) Easyjet served 10 million passengers last year. (2) Easyjet served 10 million people last year.

Barker observes that deverbal nouns with agentive ''-er'' or ''-ee'' form a productive class of nouns with a per-event interpretation as the default reading. This is because the referents of such nouns are defined by their engagement in a given activity; thus, the same individual may be counted more than once if they engage in the activity more than once.

Barker then endeavours to show that even for these cases, lexically given criteria of identity are neither necessary nor plausible. Instead, he argues, whether a noun receives a per-event interpretation or a per-individual interpretation depends on lexical criteria of application as well as pragmatic conditions.

Brandtner and von Heusinger address deverbal nouns derived with ''-ung'' in German which can have a variety of sortal readings such as events, results or objects, depending on the context. To discuss how these different readings are determined compositionally, they start out with the following observation: modifiers and predicates of the same noun can have conflicting selectional restrictions for the sortal reading of the noun. Thus, in the following clause, the adjective triggers an event reading (EV), while the verb requires a result reading (RE). The noun apparently fulfils both requirements at the same time:

The authors show that previous assumptions about how the sortal reading is determined fail to account for such cases. Instead, the authors suggest that the noun in fact receives only one reading, which is fixed by the first expression that comes with selectional restrictions -- which would be the adjective in the case of (1). Then, they argue, the second expression with selectional restrictions undergoes a predicate transfer as defined by Nunberg (1995). This approach was developed to account for clauses like ''I am parked out back'', where the meaning of the predicate [parked out back] is transferred to [the owner of a car that is parked out back], according to Nunberg.

The contribution by Liesbet Heyvaert advocates the advantages of a cognitive-functional approach to nominalizations over other treatments, especially over generative syntactic approaches. After outlining the principles of her take on language, the author turns to case studies of ''-er'' and ''-ing'' nominalizations.

For ''-er'' nominalizations, Heyvaert gives a brief summary of her work in Heyvaert (2003). She reviews the treatments of ''-er'' nominalizations by, among others, Rappaport Hovav and Levin (1992) and concludes that they do not deal with, and cannot account for, cases profiling non-subject arguments such as ''stroller''. Based on a corpus study of non-agentive ''-er'' nominalizations, Heyvaert concludes that lexicalized ''-er'' nominalizations, including ''stroller'', ''broiler'', ''teacher'', ''drinker'' and ''toaster'' systematically draw on a modal meaning, which could be given the following form: according to the properties of x it is possible that P(x). By contrast, ad hoc nominalizations as in ''the city's destroyer'' typically refer to the agent of a particular event.

The section about ''-ing'' nominalization also sums up some of Heyvaert's earlier work. She discusses two issues: first, the problem of how to distinguish between factive action nominalizations as in (1) and gerundives as in (2):

(1) They say [Saddam's targeting of Israel] did not achieve its objective (2) My husband speaks very well, but his job involves [my answering the phone on his behalf quite a bit of the time]

The second issue concerns the question of why certain items such as adjectives and demonstratives are no longer available for gerundive nominalizations.

5. Tibor Lackzó: A new account of possessors and event nominals in Hungarian.

Tibor Lackzó addresses the syntax and semantics of Hungarian possessive constructions and introduces his approach within a Lexical Functional framework. He identifies two problems with classical approaches within a GB framework. The first problem is with the semantic representation commonly assumed for the possessive construction, as given in (1):

(1) λxλy[N(x) & R(x,y)], where N is the predicate denoted by the head noun and R is the (possessive) relation between the head noun and its possessor. E.g. in ''John's hat'', N would be λx[hat(x)] and R would be λx. owns(John)(x).

Lackzó claims that the possessive relation is subordinate to the predicate denoted by the head noun and that a semantic representation should represent this subordinate relation.

The second problem the author seeks to amend concerns relational and deverbal nouns. In the influential account by Szabolcsi (1994), the possessive suffix to a noun always assigns a theta role to the possessor. As a consequence the possessor of a deverbal noun as in (2) is assigned two theta roles, one by the verbal root, and one by the possessive suffix to the deverbal noun.

(2) as ö megérkez-és-e the he.NOM arrive-DEV-Poss.3SG 'his arrival'

Lackzó suggests instead that the possessive suffix always forces a noun to be a two-place predicate. Relational and deverbal nouns then assign one of their lexical roles to the possessor noun.

Finally, Lackzó discusses some of the empirical challenges to his approach.

6. Fabienne Martin: The semantics of eventive suffixes in French.

Fabienne Martin starts her treatment of the French nominalizing suffixes ''-age'', ''-ment'' and ''-ion'' by showing that French speakers do apply them productively and systematically, even though many of the nouns they occur with have been inherited or loaned from Latin.

The author restricts her study to eventive readings of the deverbal nouns under consideration and establishes a test for diagnosing eventive readings. She then discusses a number of hypotheses about how the distribution of the different suffixes is determined. Arguing that no single factor can account for all the different cases, she proposes a multi-feature analysis.

Martin contrasts the suffixes in pairs, starting off with the contrast between ''-age'' and ''-ment'', and identifies several features to account for the differences in each of the three pairs. As a result, Martin comes up with a list of five semantic features for which the three suffixes appear to have differing values. These features then are suggested to determine the distribution of the suffixes in productive use.

7. Chiara Melloni: Action nominals inside: lexical-semantic issues.

The paper by Chiara Melloni deals with deverbal action nominals and the variety of interpretations they can receive. Action nominals have been divided into argument-structure (AS) nominals and referential nominals, depending on whether they preserve the argument structure of their verbal stem or not. This morpho-syntactic distinction corresponds to the semantic classification of action nominals into 'event nouns' and 'result nouns'.

However, Melloni argues, the term 'result noun' is not descriptively adequate for a variety of non-AS, non-event nouns such as 'connection', 'distraction' or 'administration': Instead, these nouns rather refer to the means, the source or the group of agents of the respective event.

The hypotheses Melloni puts forward is that such differences in readings can at least in part be systematically derived from the lexical meanings of the verbs involved. For her investigation, Melloni focuses on nouns derived by the Italian suffixes ''-mento'', ''-zione'' and ''-tura''. Claiming that these suffixes are semantically interchangeable, she goes on to identify those lexical features of verb meanings which are responsible for the different readings available for the derived nouns.

Starting out with actual result nouns such as 'construction', 'translation' and 'puncture', Melloni suggests that those readings are related to the presence of a positive [Loc] feature in the lexical entry of the verb. This feature is assumed to indicate that spatial configuration plays a role in the meaning of verbs like 'stay' or 'remain'.

Secondly, if a referential nominal refers to a participant of the event, that participant has to be non-sentient. Finally, a binary aspectual feature [dynamic], which is part of the verb meaning, will determine whether a referential nominal will refer to the whole of the event [+dynamic] or its target state [-dynamic].

8. Antje Roßdeutscher and Hans Kamp: Constraints on the formation and interpretation of -ung-nouns.

German deverbal nouns with the suffix ''-ung'' are the topic of Roßdeutscher's and Kamp's contribution to the volume. The authors try to identify the main factors that determine whether a verb can serve as a productive base for an ''-ung'' nominalization or not.

The first major factor they identify is the distinction between verbs with bi-eventive projections vs. verbs with mono-eventive projections. For example, the verb 'to clean' implies both an agent doing something to an object and the object getting clean as a result of that. By contrast, 'to wipe' only specifies the activity of the agent. ''-Ung''-nouns can only be derived from bi-eventive verbs. The authors then endeavour to derive this constraint from two more general constraints about structural requirements of ''-ung'': they suggest that ''-ung'' must be inserted immediately above a minimal vP node and that it requires as input a structure containing a condition of the form 'e CAUSE s'.

Elaborating on the consequences of these two hypotheses, the authors also consider verbs which allow for the prefix ''be-'' and verbs derived from nominal roots.

Finally, the authors turn to the variety, and often ambiguity, of the interpretations available for ''-ung'' nominals. Classifying them into four categories, they relate the meanings of the nouns to the semantics of the verbal bases. One major factor accounting for the readings available for the noun, according to the authors, is the distinction between 'property' and 'sortal roots': The former are related to roots describing properties of a noun as in 'to weaken -- weak', whereas the latter refer to actions which contribute to, or modify the existence of an entity such as 'to collect'.

9. Melanie Uth: The rivalry of French -ment and -age from a diachronic perspective.

In the final paper of the volume, Melanie Uth addresses again the two French nominalizing morphemes ''-ment'' and ''-age''. Basing her investigation on diachronic data, she proposes an alternative to Martin's account in the same volume.

Retracing the development of the two suffixes, Uth concludes that a single semantic difference has determined their contrasting historic roles and is still responsible for the differences in their productive use. She suggests that '''-age' nominals focus on the property of subject referents to take part in the event designated by the base verb''.

By contrast, ''-ment'' is suggested to be diachronically related to the Latin morpheme ''-to'' which was used in the formation of past passive participles and nominalizations referring to the result of an event. Correspondingly, Uth claims, today's use of ''-ment'' can be characterized as nominalizing ''the property of Theme arguments to participate in the state resulting from the base event.''

In her final section, Uth discusses the semantic differences between ''-age'' nominals and ''-ment'' nominals in modern French, including those observed by Martin in the same volume. She argues that in general, these differences can be accounted for by the diachronically established difference mentioned above.

EVALUATION

The collection offers a range of perspectives on the semantics of nominalizations and does so, as the title promises, 'across languages and frameworks'. As such it certainly makes for an inspiring resource for anyone working on related issues.

Having said that, I would like to point out several shortcomings, some of which are rather widespread for this type of publication, while some others are more specific to this particular volume or individual contributions therein.

First of all, the authors as well as the editors could have made some effort to somehow relate their different approaches to each other. Except for Melanie Uth's paper, obvious connections between the papers are not commented on at all.

In particular, the observations and problems dealt with by Martin, Melloni, Roßdeutscher and Kamp, and, to a lesser extent, Brandtner and von Heusinger, appear to have significant overlaps, but are approached from very different directions and with very different assumptions. While on the one hand, this variety of approaches to similar problems is interesting in itself, it would have been of great service to the reader if the authors and/or editors had made the effort to comment on their differences.

Another point of critique concerns the papers by Barker and by Brandtner and von Heusinger: While they introduce some intriguing observations and arguments, it does not seem entirely clear to the reviewer to what extent their treatments are specific to nominalizations in contrast to simple nouns such as 'passenger' in the case of Barker or 'newspaper' in the case of Brandtner and von Heusinger. A short elaboration on that would have been welcome.

The individual papers are frank about the fact that they are to a large part sketchy or at least preliminary. The reader will not find definite answers to general questions, but rather a number of interesting observations relevant to very specific discussions.

Kilu von Prince is currently working on the documentation of the Oceanic language Daakaka (Vanuatu) for her PhD. The primary subject of her linguistic passion is the range of variation between languages, which she prefers to approach from a formal semantic perspective.

This Year the LINGUIST List hopes to raise $67,000. This money will go to help
keep the List running by supporting all of our Student Editors for the coming year.
See below for donation instructions, and don't forget to check out Fund
Drive 2011 site!
http://linguistlist.org/fund-drive/2011/
There are many ways to donate to LINGUIST!
You can donate right now using our secure credit card form at
https://linguistlist.org/donation/donate/donate1.cfm
Alternatively you can also pledge right now and pay later. To do so, go to:
https://linguistlist.org/donation/pledge/pledge1.cfm
For all information on donating and pledging, including information on how to
donate by check, money order, or wire transfer, please visit:
http://linguistlist.org/donation/
The LINGUIST List is under the umbrella of Eastern Michigan University and as
such can receive donations through the EMU Foundation, which is a registered
501(c) Non Profit organization. Our Federal Tax number is 38-6005986. These
donations can be offset against your federal and sometimes your state tax return
(U.S. tax payers only). For more information visit the IRS Web-Site, or contact
your financial advisor.
Many companies also offer a gift matching program, such that they will match
any gift you make to a non-profit organization. Normally this entails your
contacting your human resources department and sending us a form that the
EMU Foundation fills in and returns to your employer. This is generally a simple
administrative procedure that doubles the value of your gift to LINGUIST, without
costing you an extra penny. Please take a moment to check if your company
operates such a program.
Thank you very much for your support of LINGUIST!